An American tragedy

The universities throughout America should have classes in the use of arms for self defense. When the students have passed their training they should be allowed to carry arms for their own safety.

Those universities who choose not to do this should at least have armed guards in their dorms and classrooms. It is just like 9/11 demanding airlines to ban arms on their passengers and we are playing into the arms of liberals who believe only our government should be armed. Wake up!

Things are changing in America. Our citizens and our students are filled with rage over the decisions being made by our government. Donâ€™t kid yourself that Bush is against gun control. Read the Patriots bills where he shows that we can be disarmed when the White House feels is it necessary.

We must stop drugging our kids with Prozac and Ritalin as it changes the chemistry in their brains.

Many articles have been written on this subject but when a massacre like this one and Columbine happen, look a little deeper into the drugs given to the murderers. The combinations of these drugs and the video games and television/movies shown, have added a new dimension to their violence development.

Why do we allow our children to be dragged into the society of hatred and rage? When their brains have been drugged, their self esteem and decision making is wiped out.

The average American child today in America spends thousands of hours in front of the television and then introduced to violent video games. These will do no harm if that child has been properly given guidance in respecting others and that must be done with a clean brain and done in the family home.

Our kids who attend universities at this time are sitting ducks and it is up to the Universities to allow them to protect themselves from anything that comes their way. But in America the people will whine and demand gun control and expect the people to obey the law. Sure like they quit doing drugs and got out of their street gangs.

The government cannot teach character building and neither can the television. We are breeding a generation of rage and anger.

24 COMMENTS

Taking private property through condemnation for GOVERNMENT USE is not confiscation. If government buys weapons from Americans through condemnation, they must be for government use, not for destruction. Buy a dictionary.

The Constitution was not drawn up by state delegations, it was drawn up by a federal constitutional convention manned by representatives sent by the people. When it was ratified, it was ratified by conventions of representatives chosen by the people. Thus it was ratified by Virginians, not Virginia, by New Yorkers, not New York.

It is frightening that you claim to know more about the creation of the Constitution than did the men who actually created it. It is obvious from your statements that you have never put butt into a chair in a constitutional law class.

The Constitution was drawn up by state delegations and submitted to the people of the several states for ratification through convention. In other words, and for example, the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia through convention voted to accept the Constitution. Unless you are arguing that Virginians are not the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is safe to say Virginia ratified the US Constitution. When enough States did so, working agreements between the states ceased to have validity (exempli gratia, the Articles of Confederation).

Perhaps you should speak with “one of America’s finest universities” about a refund.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Thank you for proving my point for me, Thomas. The government can indeed confiscate to its heart’s content. Your claim that it cannot confiscate firearms because they are property is demolished by your own hand.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

“I could have also included the government decision in 1913 to confiscate a portion of a wage earnerâ€™s property by taxing his and her income. Even more evident that the government can confiscate property is its taking of oneâ€™s person in the form of involuntary servitude (a.k.a. conscription or draft). Is there any property more sacred to a person than his own body?”

Taxing to provided for the defense and general welfare of this great nation is not “confiscation of property.” In fact, when the Founders got around to listing specific powers of government in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1, the first power they listed was “Taxation.”

Of course the 13th Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude (military draft) but try reading the 1918 SCOTUS decision of Schenck v. United States in which Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the government must be able to do some things in time of war that would be unconstitutional in other times, because of the “clear and present danger” that the nation could be destroyed by the enemy if it didn’t.

You state that “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified by the states to create a federal government and to limit its authority and powers. In other words, the federal government is a creation of the states,”

Totally false.

John Marshal, the driving force behind ratification of the Constitution in Virginia stated in 1918, when he was Chief Justice, that your argument is false. He and the other Founders maintained that the Constitution and the federal government were created by the people, not the states. Try reading the preamble of the Constitution, then try wading through the McCulloch v Maryland decision.

I expended considerable time, effort and money in the graduate school at one of America’s finest universities to become one of the top constitutional “experts” of American journalism. Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming your uneducated opinion is equal or superior, to my knowledge.

I’m 74 years old and grew up in a small beach village in California called Santa Monica. I was the third generation to be born and raised there. We all knew each other because we shared the fear of WW2 and the San Andreas Fault. We set up safe homes long before it became popular. None of our homes were ever locked and the children knew which would welcome them during a crisis.

Over population destroyed my village and brought in too many people who had no respect for what our village was all about. I simply moved up the coast 200 miles and found another village. That too was taken over by people who put bars on their windows and alarm systems on their cars and businesses.

California has alway been known as an open and friendly place to live and now it is designated as a hole of hell catering to drug addicts and homosexuals.

Even on the internet the religious right spend many hours and words insulting the state they probabaly can’t even find on a map.

Americans need to be armed. Our neighbors are not here to live but to make money on real estate. They want their anonymity as they want no roots to be set in anyplace they live.

America is going to need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to wake us up that we are a nation of free people. We need our teams of people we can trust. The lack of these teams is the tragedy.

Sociologists have been warning about “anomie” for decades. That’s the depersonalizing miasma of an over-crowded, anonymous social milieu.

Do you know the name of your neighbor across the stret? Do you know the name of your neighbor’s children?

Do you know the name of the person who checks you out at the grocery? Do they know who you are?

“Anomie” — literally French for “without a name.”

Not only can I cash a check locally without any ID, if for some crazy reason I got into town and forgot my wallet . . . I can get what I need, get it home, and pay the tab next time I’m in town. Jim, the Sheriff is not concerned that I forgot my wallet and don’t have a license . . . Hell . . . Jim and I take turns whippin’ each other at the skeet shoot every Sunday. He knows I’m legal to drive.

The “American Tragedy” is that we’ve become disconnected from the things that support life. I have dirt, pastures. There is livestock in the pastures around me. Not a lot of asphalt, no billboards, no malls, no traffic. It’s deer, elk, eagles, grass, sun, wind, the ocean.

The kids like to fish off the bridge down at the end of the road here. I know who they are. They know me.

The aptly named â€œDick Actâ€ of 1903 did indeed transfer authority over the ORGANIZED militia from the states to the Federal government. The UNORGANIZED militia remained as defined in current US Code: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia areâ€”
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. â€œ

You falsely claimed that the US government could not confiscate firearms because they are property and fall under the protection of the 5th amendment. I pointed out a couple of examples (gold and eminent domain) that contradicted your claim. I could have also included the government decision in 1913 to confiscate a portion of a wage earnerâ€™s property by taxing his and her income. Even more evident that the government can confiscate property is its taking of oneâ€™s person in the form of involuntary servitude (a.k.a. conscription or draft). Is there any property more sacred to a person than his own body? Catching on?;-)

And again, I reiterate, the 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right, granting nothing. You claim that it was meant to prevent the states from banning firearms. This turns history on its head. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified by the states to create a federal government and to limit its authority and powers. In other words, the federal government is a creation of the states, so it is not the federal government that is restricting the states from disarming the citizenry â€“ it is the states restricting the federal government from doing so. Catching on?

As to your attempt to present â€œthe peopleâ€ as being some sort of collective rather than individuals â€“ good luck with that one. The wording would have been something like â€œthe arming of the militia shall not be infringedâ€. Instead it speak of the â€œrightâ€. Collectives do not have â€œrightsâ€. They have privileges, powers, license, and authority, but only individuals have â€œrightsâ€.;-)

If you want to try to make your case, do so in the GUN forum in the ReadersRand forum, because this article will not be here much longer.

By the way, point number 5 still stands: 5. The goal of anti-gun organizations is to severely limit or eliminate the right to private ownership and use of firearms by their neighbors. Nothing less. I guess it is only fair to acknowledge that most of them cannot help themselves. It is very difficult for some, especially goal-oriented and aging ’60’s New Left influenced modern ‘liberals’, to control their inner fascist when they see a way of using the government bayonet to force their neighbors to give up a right that has long been enjoyed by themselves and their ancestors. So, don’t give me this “crap” about wanting to just have a little bit more’ reasonable’ gun control over what we already have.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system, so the old state militias are the present national guards. Got it?

The Fifth Amendment, that prevents confiscation of property without “due process of law” also states that government can take private property with “just compensation.” Got it?

I never said the 2nd Amendment grants anything. I said the phrase “well regulated militia” refers us back to the main body of the Constitution that says Congress arms the militias. The phrase “right of the people” indicates a community right, not an individual right; that would have said “no person’s right to keep and bear arms.” The 2nd Amendment prevents states from outlawing guns, because of the need for militias in a time there was no professional standing federal army; once again Congress power of arming the militias. Got it?

Don’t take a quote made before or during the Revolution to claim they define the 2nd Amendment. That amendment is defined by what it says, but you have to be able to understand it. Got it?

The goal of “anti-gun organizations” is to keep guns out of the hands of crazed individuals who will go on a rampage and kill dozens of people at a time. Those organizations are not “anti-gun”, they are “anti-maniacs with guns”. Got it?

(I just posted this in RR, sorry for repeating it, but this article really reminded me of why I felt it important to post it)

Snipe hunting

When I was a kid about 7 or 8 years old, my grandpa took me snipe hunting. He took me out to a dark isolated area, armed me with a deadly B-B gun and a flashlight and told me to sit and wait for the snipe to walk by and blast away.

Well…there were two problems for me. Firstly, I had no clue what a snipe was or even looked like and secondly I didn’t have a taste for killing anything, not even an ant if I didn’t have to. I tried to ask my grandpa what a snipe looked like, but he ignored me and just left me sitting there in the dark. I just did what my grandpa said to do…even though I had decided that if a snipe walked right up to me, I’d just scare it away and say I shot and missed.

Hours later my grandpa came back and woke me up from my hard night of hunting. He asked me if I shot a snipe and I said, “No, I don’t even know what one looks like.” My grandpa said, “Snipes come in a lot of forms and shapes, you’ll know one when you see it…your life depends on whether or not you know when to shoot.

I hope I never have to come face-to-face with a snipe…but if I do, well…”I hope I have a choice” to take the appropriate action, if it means my life or death.

Moral to My Story…

I’ve discovered that when I don’t make choices and decision for myself…others will. I don’t want it to be the government or an outraged mob who is going through a knee jerk reaction to a crisis and has decided to make a national movement out of it.

Madisons original words which he wanted inserted in the main body of the Constitution were “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The wording went through at least 5 changes by committee before the current wording was selected and they were added as an amendment rather than Madison’s suggestion of inserting them in to the main body.

Yes, I’m sure Mr. Cho would have found it just as easy to knife 32 people to death.

Comments are closed.

Our Privacy Policy

We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site.

These companies may use aggregated information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you.